On Jan 27, 9:59 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Smarter is legitimately ambiguous > > It's not ambiguous in the slightest, according to you it's all very clear > cut: if a human does it then it's smart and if a computer does it then it's > not. Nothing could be simpler, or stupider.
That's a misinterpretation of my position. If a trash can at McDonalds says THANK YOU on the lid, does that mean the trash can is being polite? I'm not biased against computers, any mechanical object, puppet, device, sculpture, etc is equally incapable of ever becoming smart. > > > No. They can out compute us. They can measure more units of Shannon > > information per second. > > Call it whatever you want but computers can figure out, think, calculate or > compute ways to arrange things their way despite our best efforts to > arrange things our way. That situation is usually described as "being > outsmarted". The trashcan lid says THANK YOU every single time you close it. Better than any employee. It's the most polite employee evar. > > > Denying the common usage of the word free will > > The common usage of "free will" is gibberish and I could no more deny it > than I could deny a burp. Is there some language on Earth that shares your pathological denial of the concept of free will? > > > as autonomy or conscious choice is an egotistical defense mechanism > > > that I don't take seriously. > > And despite the torrent of mindless verbiage you produce whenever I mention > it, the simple fact remains that a choice, conscious or otherwise, was made > for a reason or it was made for no reason. If my verbiage is mindless, then why or how can you respond? What is the 'reason' for which you make the choice to respond? > > > If you ask people whether computers are smart, what will they say?" > > I don't give a damn what they say I care what they do. If the computer has > outsmarted a person and then that same person starts saying that the > computer isn't really smart, well, I don't understand how anyone could hear > such self serving remarks without laughing. When you try to swat a fly but it outsmarts you over and over, does that make the fly smarter than you? > > > I have defined trivial intelligence vs understanding, > > You understand the problem superbly but can not solve it, but the other > fellow has no understanding of the problem at all but nevertheless can > solve it. The computer doesn't know if it has solved anything or not, and it never will. > BALONEY! That's just sour grapes and making lame excuses for your > failure and for the other fellow's success. It may hurt your pride but its > time to face reality, the other fellow is just smarter than you. No, there is no sour grapes at all. I don't care if a computer or an alien or person is smarter than me. I have no pride in being a human. The fact is that I see this narrow view of intelligence is a toxic misunderstanding. It conflates intelligence with playing games and solving puzzles but misses understanding itself completely. Intelligence is about stepping out of the system and breaking free of the game entirely. > > > Without free will, what would be the difference between killing someone > > and not killing them? > > In one case somebody is dead in the other case they are not. But why would that matter? > > > Logic is a way of making sense, but it is not the only way. > > I see, you're not even attempting to make your views logical. I can't help but try to make my views logical, but the universe has other ways of making sense as well. Blue is not logical, but I can sense and make sense of it and with it, all with no logic whatsoever. > > > It occurs to me that the occidental mindset has a hard time noticing that > > there are other parties involved in matters of negotiation and reason. > > That's the fourth time you've made a tasteless crack about occidentals; is > it supposed to be less offensive than talking about a stereotypical > "oriental mindset" or "negro mindset"? It occurs to me that you just don't > like round eyed white devils very much. > I'm not talking about white Westerners. I'm talking about post- Enlightenment empiricism. You can have any cultural or physiological characteristics and be biased toward or against occidental epistemology. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.